Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 385
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Dunno. I still think he meant that people take solice in things that bring them comfort in trying times and that there are politicians who exploit that for political gain. So to me those poeple should be less offended by Obama's comments and wake up and be more offended by those that use them and their "values" for political gain. Particularily those that repeatedly demonstrate that they only say they hold similar values, yet, live their lives in a way completely contrary to those values.
    Apparently you don't respect their values either.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Should Obama be the nominee -- (as he probably will be) both Bill and Hillary will campaign hard and enthusiastically on his behalf.

    Bill will make Obama seem able to turn water into wine, be able to feed the multitudes with 7 loaves of bread, of being able to walk on water...
    I don't know. Bill's "Send Me" endorsement speech for Kerry was pretty tepid.
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Apparently you don't respect their values either.
    Read my post again, carefully.
  4. #184  
    I did. Now read mine.
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I did. Now read mine.
    If you're really interested in clearing this up you'll kindly tell me what it is you think I said.
  6.    #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    What you do if it came down to McCain and Hillary in November?

    If Hillary is the nominee, many of the looney left -- having learnt NOTHING from junior's cataclysmic 8 years -- will again give precedence to preserving their sense of moral superiority, and again cast their votes for Ralph Nadir.

    The loonies have the remarkable ability to pose as being prescient, while simultaneously being without the capacity to learn either from the past or the present.

    They actually have much in common with the red faced bible thumping believers in the coming apocalypse.

    The evangelicals adore junior, and want things to get so bad that it brings on the rapture (and eventually BARYE’s second coming.)

    The loonies also love junior -- and they’d welcome another 3rd or 4th term for him and cheney. They too hope for things to get so bad, that so many lose their homes, their jobs, as well as their lives in junior’s wars -- that people in desperation finally surrender to the loonies perfect utopian solutions and leadership.

    (I say all this from love -- because as you plainly see, BARYE is not bitter ...)

    .
    Last edited by BARYE; 04/16/2008 at 04:51 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7.    #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I don't know. Bill's "Send Me" endorsement speech for Kerry was pretty tepid.
    as I remember, I thought it was pretty good -- well not bad -- tepid is a little, well maybe it was a kinda tepid.

    But maybe he was afraid that anything else would overshadow Kerry -- who ain't anybody's idea for a great speaker.

    BTW -- the worst speach ever made at a political convention ??

    Bill Clintons awful '86? Keynoter -- the biggest applause line: "...in conclusion..."
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    If you're really interested in clearing this up you'll kindly tell me what it is you think I said.
    You said what Obama said and then backed away from. You characterized people's religious convictions as a fallback in times of difficulty, as opposed to a primary, legitimate value in itself. How would you feel if someone said that you loved your wife because you couldn't find anyone better? That would be an insult to your relationship with your wife, just as Obama's original comment was an insult to people's relationship with God. One could sit here and try to argue about whether it's technically true that you couldn't find anyone better, but that wouldn't make it any less insulting.

    You also implied that these people are naive and taken advantage of, as if they're not free-thinking, intelligent, successful people who define what's important to them.

    Listen to what Clinton, McCain, and various commentators have said about Obama's initial remarks. I know you take it all as knee-jerk politicization of an innocent, and true, statement. But I think he really insulted a lot of people.


    And according to Rasmussen, 56% of people disagreed with his statement, and 45% said it reflected an "elitest" view. I assume that most of the people who agreed with him were not the target of his remarks.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...l_town_america
    Last edited by samkim; 04/16/2008 at 12:21 PM.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    as I remember, I thought it was pretty good -- well not bad -- tepid is a little, well maybe it was a kinda tepid.

    But maybe he was afraid that anything else would overshadow Kerry -- who ain't anybody's idea for a great speaker.

    BTW -- the worst speach ever made at a political convention ??

    Bill Clintons awful '86? Keynoter -- the biggest applause line: "...in conclusion..."
    It was a great speech. He was very eloquent and moving. But the content of it was lacking. As I remember it, it was built around the thesis that Kerry had great initiative - Kerry volunteered for everything - as opposed to his being a great leader, having the right policies or vision, or having been a huge success in Congress. I remember thinking that was one of the greatest empty endorsements I'd ever heard.

    I expect that in August, Bill will make another stirring speech - this time supporting Obama and praising his eloquence and ability to inspire people, but again lacking in true conviction that Obama is the best choice to be President.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You said what Obama said and then backed away from. You characterized people's religious convictions as a fallback in times of difficulty, as opposed to a primary, legitimate value in itself. How would you feel if someone said that you loved your wife because you couldn't find anyone better? That would be an insult to your relationship with your wife, just as Obama's original comment was an insult to people's relationship with God. One could sit here and try to argue about whether it's technically true that you couldn't find anyone better, but that wouldn't make it any less insulting.
    Well actually I said, "...that people take solice in things that bring them comfort in trying times".

    Seems to me you've asumed a lot in reading my statement.

    You also implied that these people are naive and taken advantage of, as if they're not free-thinking, intelligent, successful people who define what's important to them.
    Oh I see. You mean I implied they were sheeple. But in reality, I did not. I said, "..and that there are politicians who exploit that for political gain."

    Meaning there are politicians you exploit religion and claim to be religous for political gain. But for the record, even though I didn't say it above - I admittedly loathe sheeple.

    I went on to say, "...So to me those people should be less offended by Obama's comments and wake up and be more offended by those that use them and their "values" for political gain."

    Which is much the same in my recurring theme - politicians claiming to share your values have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. They are preying upon the faithful and telling them what they want to hear to hold power and continue to keep the money flowing to their corporate sponsors.

    Which is why I said, "...Particularily those that repeatedly demonstrate that they only say they hold similar values, yet, live their lives in a way completely contrary to those values."

    Take your pick of politicians that have preyed upon the faithful but have turned out to be not only hypocrites, but outrageous sinners who should burn in he11 some day.

    Listen to what Clinton, McCain, and various commentators have said about Obama's initial remarks. I know you take it all as knee-jerk politicization of an innocent, and true, statement. But I think he really insulted a lot of people.
    Well of course right-wing commentators and Clinton have made more out of it than necessary. And I'm certain most of the offended voters will turn out to be right-wingers that will never vote for him anyway because he is black and doesn't "share their values".

    The charge that he is an "elitist" is laughable coming from the likes of McCain, Clinton or any of the other "beltway lifers".
    Last edited by moderateinny; 04/16/2008 at 03:11 PM.
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    If Hillary is the nominee, many of the looney left -- having learnt NOTHING from junior's cataclysmic 8 years -- will again give precedence to preserving their sense of moral superiority, and again cast their votes for Ralph Nadir.
    I totally forgot about Ralph....that should be a 5th point in my list above as that is a very real possibility as well. This just adds to the challenges the Dem party is going to have overcome if they want to one of their own sitting behind the Resolute desk.


    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    (I say all this from love -- because as you plainly see, BARYE is not bitter ...)
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well actually I said, "...that people take solice in things that bring them comfort in trying times".

    Seems to me you've asumed a lot in reading my statement.
    Are you trying to draw a distinction between what you said and what Obama said? I don't see it. You're both characterizing religion as a solution to a problem, as opposed to a worthy endeavor in itself.


    Oh I see. You mean I implied they were sheeple. But in reality, I did not. I said, "..and that there are politicians who exploit that for political gain."
    I said that you implied that "these people are naive and taken advantage of." You deny it, but then say these people were exploited. I can't help but wonder if you're saying this with a straight face.


    Well of course right-wing commentators and Clinton have made more out of it than necessary. And I'm certain most of the offended voters will turn out to be right-wingers that will never vote for him anyway because he is black and doesn't "share their values".
    First of all, his statement was in response to a question about why some people won't vote for him. So of course, he was directing his comments at conservatives - but not necessarily "right wingers."

    Second, Obama's unfavorable ratings went from 45% last week to 51% today. That's 6% of the population who did not think unfavorably of him before, but who do now. I think it's fair to say that many of those 6% were not "right-wingers that will never vote for him anyway."

    The charge that he is an "elitist" is laughable coming from the likes of McCain, Clinton or any of the other "beltway lifers".
    Says the guy who loathes sheeple.
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Are you trying to draw a distinction between what you said and what Obama said? I don't see it. You're both characterizing religion as a solution to a problem, as opposed to a worthy endeavor in itself.
    Again you're wrong. The last time I checked, one of the tenants of most religions is that the down trodden can always rely upon their religion to uplift them in times of trouble. I respect that some see religion as a worthy endeavor and believe Obama does as well. It's called "freedom of religion" and I feel just as strongly about it as I do the separation of church and state.

    I said that you implied that "these people are naive and taken advantage of." You deny it, but then say these people were exploited. I can't help but wonder if you're saying this with a straight face.
    Funny, I cannot believe that you're replying with a straight face that you knowingly vote for outright hyporcites and corporate criminal pirates that get elected under the guise of sharing your "values". I'll continue to give the others that vote for such phoney politicians the benefit of the doubt that they are unknowingly voting for unscrupulous anti-Christs posing as "moral leaders".

    First of all, his statement was in response to a question about why some people won't vote for him. So of course, he was directing his comments at conservatives - but not necessarily "right wingers."
    Yea, he was saying that in these economic times the right-wing will likely do very well by "changing the subject" to wedge issues - like they usually do - and the ones that are suffering most will likely cling to the things they are comfortable with when push comes to shove. e.g. god and guns. He is acknowledging that the GOP is very good at changing the subject and using social wedge issues to win elections. Does that offend you? Lord knows the GOP cannot run on fiscal conservatism now can they? Try to answer that with a straight face if you can.

    Second, Obama's unfavorable ratings went from 45% last week to 51% today. That's 6% of the population who did not think unfavorably of him before, but who do now. I think it's fair to say that many of those 6% were not "right-wingers that will never vote for him anyway."
    I'm not impressed. But then again, given the amount of hype over yet another NON-STORY about Obama in the supposed "liberal" media, I'm not at all surprised.

    Says the guy who loathes sheeple.
    Cute, if only it made sense.
  14. #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Again you're wrong. The last time I checked, one of the tenants of most religions is that the down trodden can always rely upon their religion to uplift them in times of trouble. I respect that some see religion as a worthy endeavor and believe Obama does as well. It's called "freedom of religion" and I feel just as strongly about it as I do the separation of church and state.
    You haven't described anything that I'm wrong about.

    Funny, I cannot believe that you're replying with a straight face that you knowingly vote for outright hyporcites and corporate criminal pirates that get elected under the guise of sharing your "values". I'll continue to give the others that vote for such phoney politicians the benefit of the doubt that they are unknowingly voting for unscrupulous anti-Christs posing as "moral leaders".
    First, you missed the point. You were contradicting yourself.

    Second, you're changing the subject completely.

    Third, you don't know my religious values, nor who I voted for, nor why.

    Yea, he was saying that in these economic times the right-wing will likely do very well by "changing the subject" to wedge issues - like they usually do - and the ones that are suffering most will likely cling to the things they are comfortable with when push comes to shove. e.g. god and guns. He is acknowledging that the GOP is very good at changing the subject and using social wedge issues to win elections. Does that offend you? Lord knows the GOP cannot run on fiscal conservatism now can they? Try to answer that with a straight face if you can.
    No one is offended by that. That has nothing to do with the controversy. I don't know why you even bring it up, other than to change the subject.

    I'm not impressed. But then again, given the amount of hype over yet another NON-STORY about Obama in the supposed "liberal" media, I'm not at all surprised.
    Again, you missed the point. Your claim that people who were offended were just the right-wingers was baseless.

    And it's hardly a non-story when the leading Presidential candidate makes a claim about small-town voters that the MAJORITY of the country disagrees with, and which offends enough people to turn off 5% of the country who used to like him.

    Cute, if only it made sense.
    You don't get much of what I say. That's fine.
  15. #195  
    " ... I cannot believe that you're replying with a straight face that you knowingly vote for outright hyporcites and corporate criminal pirates that get elected under the guise of sharing your "values". I'll continue to give the others that vote for such phoney politicians the benefit of the doubt that they are unknowingly voting for unscrupulous anti-Christs posing as "moral leaders"

    - Moderatinny



    Democrat candidates are in every way the exact same type of hypocrites in politics - they just campaign with different agendas. Period. Regarding criminal pirates running under the guise of sharing the values of the less privileged, lower and middle class citizens of this country, you could very easily stick that one smack dab on hill or bill's forehead.
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You haven't described anything that I'm wrong about.
    I'm not sure that you're the type that could ever consider that you may have misunderstood something. You certainly misunderstood me and its my opinion you've misunderstood the context of what Obama was trying to say.

    First, you missed the point. You were contradicting yourself.
    No, not really. I think you see one side of an issue one way due to your political leanings and I probably see it diffrerently due to mine.

    Second, you're changing the subject completely.
    It is the subject since I am contending that he didn't articulate what his point of contention was very well. I don't think he looks down upon people of religion or those that like guns at all.

    Third, you don't know my religious values, nor who I voted for, nor why.
    You're right. I'm sorry. Awfully spirited defense you're putting up for someone that isn't feeling a bit insulted himself...but I'll take you at your word that I've possibly misread you. Everyone deserves to be understood in context....unless your name is Obama I reckon.

    Again, you missed the point. Your claim that people who were offended were just the right-wingers was baseless.
    No I think he was targeting right-wingers in his comments and their strategies. And yes, I think largely right-wingers that wouldn't vote for him anyway were the ones offended the most.

    And it's hardly a non-story when the leading Presidential candidate makes a claim about small-town voters that the MAJORITY of the country disagrees with,
    Its a story because his opponents and the not-the-sharpest-tools-in-the-shed-media here in the US made it a story.

    and which offends enough people to turn off 5% of the country who used to like him.
    5% is pretty insignificant in polling....as are polls themselves. I'm surprised that someone of your intellect would take that as such concrete proof that everyone was as offended as you apparently are....unless you are looking for a reason to be offended when it comes to Obama? Which is fundamentally my point...you WANT to be offended because you don't like him. Period.

    You don't get much of what I say. That's fine.
    I guess not. Sorry about that.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 04/16/2008 at 09:31 PM.
  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by logmein View Post
    Democrat candidates are in every way the exact same type of hypocrites in politics - they just campaign with different agendas. Period. Regarding criminal pirates running under the guise of sharing the values of the less privileged, lower and middle class citizens of this country, you could very easily stick that one smack dab on hill or bill's forehead.
    Yup. And I'm not shy about lampooning Bill, Hill, Nancy or Harry either. Except in this case the context of my criticism is aimed at the party that delights in claiming the moral high ground while banging their page boys and hiring hookers in the backroom, all while celebrating the record profits of their oil buddies of course! That distinction most certainly belongs largely to the right-wing of the GOP - not the Dems.

    Again, it is a lesser of the evils to me and always will be. When it comes to religion I find those that claim they are religious for political gain are far more evil than those that may not even believe in religion.
  18. #198  
    Just today, several democratic officials were convicted of embezzling from education funds in order to fill the pockets of girlfriends, mistresses, what have you. I believe these were officials in New York and New Jersey.

    While repubs have their hands in the pockets of big oil, dems have their hands in OUR education funds and countless others for deceptive, underhanded purposes - whether its for banging THEIR pages, mistresses, or whatever.

    I'm sorry. The democrats are every bit as crooked as the repubs. They simply steal from different sources. That's it.

    In all honesty, they really aren't the lesser of two evils, they are simply a different brand of criminal - equally repugnant.

    Its wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
  19. #199  
    Look at New Jersey. From Florio, to mcgreevey, to the now positively ridiculous corzine. The highest property taxes in the country BY FAR and yet the state is still somehow bankrupt!? 12 state officials recently arrested for embezzlement and corruption in the past year - all democrat. This is supposed to be the lesser of two evils?

    New Jersey is democratic state, and this is what we get when the dems are allowed complete control?

    I rest my case.
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I'm not sure that you're the type that could ever consider that you may have misunderstood something. You certainly misunderstood me and its my opinion you've misunderstood the context of what Obama was trying to say.
    And again, you haven't explained how. I took the time to explain to you my understanding of what you said and what Obama said. And you disagreed without explanation, saying only that I assumed a lot.

    No, not really. I think you see one side of an issue one way due to your political leanings and I probably see it diffrerently due to mine.
    Once again, I said that you implied that "these people are naive and taken advantage of." You denied it, but then said these people were being exploited. You're contradicting yourself.

    It is the subject since I am contending that he didn't articulate what his point of contention was very well. I don't think he looks down upon people of religion or those that like guns at all.
    Again, no one was offended by what you're inferring he said about conservatives and wedge issues. They were offended by what he said about people clinging to religion and guns because they were bitter.

    And I wouldn't say he looks down on these people. I'd say his statement doesn't show respect for their values - religion and guns. And antipathy to people who aren’t like them.


    You're right. I'm sorry. Awfully spirited defense you're putting up for someone that isn't feeling a bit insulted himself...but I'll take you at your word that I've possibly misread you. Everyone deserves to be understood in context....unless your name is Obama I reckon.
    I've taken the time to understand the context of what he said. I've read a lot about it. It's actually not an original concept that rural voters cling to these issues as a result of economic hardship. It's just new for a Presidential candidate to voice it.


    No I think he was targeting right-wingers in his comments and their strategies. And yes, I think largely right-wingers that wouldn't vote for him anyway were the ones offended the most.
    You're imagining a context that isn't there. His comments made no mention of right-wing political strategies. Here's the transcript:
    http://thepage.time.com/transcript-o...raiser-sunday/

    And it's good that you're finally acknowledging that people were legitimately offended by his comments. But as I pointed out, there's a significant group of people who didn't think unfavorably of him before that do now. I think it's safe to say that the "right-wingers that wouldn't vote for him anyway" already thought unfavorably of him before.


    5% is pretty insignificant in polling....as are polls themselves. I'm surprised that someone of your intellect would take that as such concrete proof that everyone was as offended as you apparently are....unless you are looking for a reason to be offended when it comes to Obama? Which is fundamentally my point...you WANT to be offended because you don't like him. Period.
    First, I like Obama a lot. Seriously. I think he's a good leader and extremely bright, and would be good for the country in many ways. I've explained this in the past. I do have some big concerns about him, none of which relate to the bitterness comment.

    Second, I'm not offended. I'm just observing that what he actually said, as opposed to what you wish he said, was offensive to many people. As a political observer, I'm acknowledging that he hurt his chances in the general election by insulting some of the people he needs to win over.

    Third, the 5% comes from a daily poll, where one level was sustained for a period of time, and then another level was sustained for a period. The margin of error vanishes when you have consistent data repeated over time. And the effect of sample bias and question bias diminishes when you compare a poll to itself. The greater uncertainty actually is in whether the sentiment will last beyond the short term. But if the public is inclined to forgive and forget, the Republicans at least won't allow them to forget.
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions